Appeal 2006-2536
Application 10/611,127
selecting steps are specifically related to avoiding potential logic unit
thrashing in a multi-requester storage system having an active-passive pair
of storage controllers." (Reply Br. 2.) Therefore, the issue is whether the
phrase "in order to avoid potential logic unit thrashing" limits the scope of
claim 1.
"Generally, . . . the preamble does not limit the claims." DeGeorge v.
Bernier, 768 F.2d 1318, 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ 758, 761 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In particular, "[t]he preamble of a claim does not limit the scope of the claim
when it merely states a purpose or intended use of the invention."
In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
(citing DeGeorge, 768 F.2d at 1322 n.3, 226 USPQ at 761 n.3). "Where . . .
the effect of the words [in the preamble] is at best ambiguous . . . a
compelling reason must exist before the language can be given weight."
Arshal v. United States, 621 F.2d 421, 431, 208 USPQ 397, 406 (Ct. Cl.
1980) (citing In re de Castelet, 562 F.2d 1236, 1244 n.6, 195 USPQ 439,
447 n.6 (CCPA 1977)).
Here, the phrase "in order to avoid potential logic unit thrashing"
appears only in the preamble of claim 1. Furthermore, it merely states a
purpose or intended use of the representative claim's "method for
arbitrating." The body of the claim neither repeats nor references the phrase.
Because the language in the body of the claim, standing alone, is clear and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013